Columbia Kermit/kermit.zip/newsgroups/misc.19941221-19950208/[e-mail]_Tue Feb 7 13:56:15 1995.msg

Internet Message Format | 2020-01-01 | 2KB

Received: from apakabar.cc.columbia.edu by watsun.cc.columbia.edu with SMTP id AA11534
  (5.65c+CU/IDA-1.4.4/HLK for <[e-mail]>); Tue, 7 Feb 1995 09:43:04 -0500
Received: by apakabar.cc.columbia.edu id AA17993
  (5.65c+CU/IDA-1.4.4/HLK for kermit.misc@watsun); Tue, 7 Feb 1995 09:43:03 -0500
Path: news.columbia.edu!panix!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!news.ccs.queensu.ca!not-for-mail
From: [e-mail] (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.kermit.misc
Subject: Re: interesting from OMEN
Date: 7 Feb 1995 08:56:15 -0500
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston
Lines: 17
Message-Id: <3h7u5v$[e-mail]>
References: <GIlCluqcZV$[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: ccs-sparc2.ccs
Apparently-To: [e-mail]


Chuck Forsberg at Omen had some legitimate beefs, I think, but after
following the debate ad nauseum last year in comp.dcom.modems, I found
myself having less and less sympathy for his position.  Mr. Forsberg
ranted for months that there was a conspiracy at Columbia to besmirch
the good name of ZMODEM.  Eventually I read the Kermit News article and
didn't see it that way.  In the end, I concluded that the best ZMODEM
implementation is slightly faster than the best KERMIT implementation,
at least some of the time.  For me, the speed difference was insignificant
compared to the price difference and the support difference.  Granted, the
latter was speculation on my part.  I read Frank's books and compared his
c.d.m postings to Chuck's and decided it would be no contest.
--

 Mike Smith                                  [e-mail]
 Queen's University                          [e-mail]
 Computing and Communications Services       [phone]